Scottish Executive

Alcohol Misuse

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many people under 18 have been admitted to hospital due to severe alcohol intoxication in each of the last five years, broken down by NHS board area, expressed also as a percentage figure of all alcohol intoxication admissions.

Mr Tom McCabe: There is no accepted definition for severe alcohol intoxication. The following information relates to acute intoxication.

  Discharges from Acute Hospitals with an Explicit Diagnosis of Acute Intoxication by NHS Board Area in 1998–2002

  

 Board Area
 Discharge 
  Period
Age


 1998
 1999
 2000
 2001
 2002


 Under 18
 % of all discharges
 Under 18
 % of all discharges
 Under 18
 % of all discharges
 Under 18
 % of all discharges
 Under 18
 % of all discharges


 Argyll and Clyde
 72
 7.7%
 103
 9.1%
 98
 9.0%
 83
 8.8%
 82
 8.4%


 Ayrshire and Arran
 142
 11.7%
 143
 10.8%
 132
 11.1%
 150
 11.0%
 171
 10.4%


 Borders
 28
 19.0%
 36
 19.0%
 32
 20.8%
 32
 19.4%
 55
 23.1%


 Dumfries and Galloway
 32
 16.6%
 35
 18.3%
 21
 11.9%
 18
 12.6%
 11
 8.2%


 Fife
 59
 10.9%
 45
 11.4%
 65
 15.3%
 47
 13.0%
 38
 11.1%


 Forth Valley
 32
 11.8%
 26
 11.9%
 41
 16.4%
 38
 10.9%
 37
 8.8%


 Grampian
 154
 12.2%
 128
 10.1%
 126
 12.1%
 109
 10.2%
 81
 7.8%


 Greater Glasgow
 134
 6.4%
 167
 8.2%
 134
 8.2%
 153
 9.1%
 95
 6.6%


 Highland
 54
 7.1%
 63
 6.6%
 66
 6.6%
 62
 6.0%
 79
 7.7%


 Lanarkshire
 62
 7.9%
 88
 9.2%
 63
 7.0%
 83
 9.2%
 74
 7.1%


 Lothian
 70
 7.4%
 87
 9.4%
 83
 9.1%
 82
 9.2%
 55
 9.3%


 Orkney
 11
 17.7%
 8
 17.4%
 10
 12.7%
 14
 19.2%
 7
 11.5%


 Shetland
 12
 21.8%
 13
 32.5%
 12
 20.7%
 5
 18.5%
 9
 14.8%


 Tayside
 69
 12.1%
 92
 10.1%
 89
 10.8%
 90
 10.3%
 56
 7.4%


 Western Isles
 10
 21.3%
 5
 10.0
 6
 16.2%
 17
 13.7%
 17
 11.6%


 Scotland
 941
 9.5%
 1039
 9.8%
 978
 10.0%
 983
 9.8%
 867
 8.7%



  Source: Scottish Morbidity Record, SMR01.

  Notes:

  Alcohol-related conditions are defined using the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD10).

  Figures given are for discharges from acute hospitals and do not include discharges from maternity hospitals, mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units.

  Information on hospital discharges relates to episodes of in-patient or day case care rather than individual patients. The same patient may account for several hospital admissions during the course of a year (or across years) and will be counted each time in the figures given.

Asylum Seekers

Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consult South Lanarkshire Council about the most effective method of delivering services for which the council is responsible to those persons held at Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre.

Ms Margaret Curran: The operation of Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre is a matter for the Home Office. The Home Office, through its contractor, engages with South Lanarkshire Council. The Executive also regularly meets with the Home Office and discusses a range of issues at these times.

Crime

Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive how the Justice Department’s commitment to close the opportunity gap by working to reduce crime will be achieved and how the department’s budget will be targeted to achieve this objective.

Cathy Jamieson: Closing the opportunity gap is part of the Executive’s overarching approach to social justice. A Partnership for a Better Scotland , published in May 2003, set out all the ways in which we will deliver on this, including the ways in which we will continue to work for a safer Scotland, reducing crime, particularly violent and drug-related crime and reducing re-offending.

  The Executive’s Draft Budget 2004-05 contained our spending plans for 2003 to 2006. Within the Executive, the Justice Department has responsibility, amongst other things, for the police, criminal justice social work services, criminal justice policy, and administrative support to the Supreme and Sheriff Courts. The budget document set out not only the objectives and targets which have been set for the police and the wider criminal justice system but also how the resources available to the Justice Department have been allocated across these various agencies and services. A copy of the full budget document is available on the Executive’s website at www.scotland.gov.uk.

Drug Misuse

Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-29869 by Dr Richard Simpson on 8 October 2002, which organisations it has funded to tackle drug misuse in each of the last three years; how much each organisation has received, and for what purpose the funding was allocated.

Hugh Henry: I refer the member to the answer given to question S1W-29869, which set out details of the three-year spending package of £128.3 million made available to augment the estimated £141 million per annum already spent on tackling drugs. Total expenditure on tackling drug misuse spans a variety of funding streams, administered by a wide range of organisations. The Executive does not hold all of this information centrally.

  All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at:

  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search..

  However, the Executive has provided direct funding, over the last three years, to the following national organisations working in the drug misuse field, as follows:

  

 Organisation
 2001-02
 2002-03
 2003-04
 Purpose


 Crew 2000
 £26,920
£17,000
 £26,920
£17,000
 £26,920
£25,000
 Towards core funding 
Towards project funding


 Scottish Drugs Forum
 £187,351

£35,926
 £285,000

£35,926
 £295,000

£48,538
 Towards core funding 
For community service providers training programme


 Scotland Against Drugs
 Nil

 
£1.5 million
 £213,450

 
£1.5 million
 £172,000
Committed

£1.5 million
 For teacher training in secondary 
  schools
Core funding from central Drug Misuse monies


 Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency
 £13.7 million
 £15.7 million
 £19.9 million
 To co-ordinate intelligence 
  and operational elements of Executive’s drug strategy


 Re-Solv
 nil
 £15,000
 £15,000
 Funding for field worker


 STRADA
 Nil

 
£100,000
 £16,200

 
£100,000
 £10,840 + further 
  £10,000 committed

£100,000
 Towards teachers multi-disciplinary 
  training
Towards training for professionals



  In addition, the Executive has contributed £2 million, over three years, to the Lloyds TSB Partnership Drugs Initiative and core funds NHS Health Scotland, which carries out some anti-drug activities.

Ferry Services

Mr Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made about whether the European Court of Justice's ruling on the Altmark Trans bus company case removes any imperative for the Gourock to Dunoon public service obligation to be tendered separately from the tender for the remainder of the network.

Nicol Stephen: The consequences of the Altmark case for ferry services are far from clear. The European Court of Justice’s decision in the Altmark case deals with the interaction between the treaty and the relevant state aid regulations for bus services. We are currently examining the full implications of the judgement in relation to the separate but similar EC maritime regulations and guidelines. As a matter of urgency, we will seek clarification of the legal position and raise the issue with the European Commission to determine the implications for tendering the Gourock-Dunoon route.

Ferry Services

Mr Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has sought any independent legal opinion regarding the European Court of Justice’s ruling on the Altmark Trans bus company case and its impact on the provision of broadband in remote areas of Scotland.

Mr Jim Wallace: We are currently considering the implications of the Altmark judgment carefully in so far as they are relevant to the provision of broadband in remote areas of Scotland.

Fire Service

Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-33438 by Hugh Henry on 10 February 2003, whether it has received consent to place copies of responses to "The Scottish Fire Services of the Future" in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre and, if so, when copies will be available.

Hugh Henry: We wrote to all those who had responded to "The Scottish Fire Service of the Future" consultation and, where respondents indicated that they were content for their response to be lodged, copies were made available to the Parliament’s Reference Centre in late February 2003. The Bib. number for the responses is 26823.

Health

Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what levels of mercury emissions would be defined as being dangerous to health and what the current levels are broken down by local authority area

Malcolm Chisholm: The risks to public health posed by mercury emissions depend on the resulting public exposures. Because of the diversity of emissions (for example, to water or air) and the complexity of the exposure pathways by which environmental mercury in its various forms can be inhaled or ingested, it is not possible definitively to state a level of mercury emissions that would be defined as being dangerous to health. The Scottish Executive is content that the current legislation for limiting industrial emissions and for the control of contaminants in food and water are sufficient to ensure that the risks for the health of the general public from environmental mercury are properly controlled. The Food Standards Agency has provided additional, related advice for susceptible groups on limitation of consumption of certain foods.

  Information on mercury emission levels broken down by local authority is not held centrally. However, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) hold details of mercury emissions from certain sites regulated as Part A installations under the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000, where these emissions exceed certain reporting thresholds. For mercury, these thresholds are 10 kg/year to air and 1 kg/year to water.

  The following tables provide a summary of the emissions data held by SEPA for 2002. Some types of installations that emit mercury, e.g. crematoria, are not regulated as Part A processes and the table therefore does not include emissions from such sources. Crematoria are, nonetheless, subject to strict regulation as Part B processes under the regulations.

  Air Emissions

  

 Company
 Site
 Emissions (kg)
 Local Authority


 Scottish Power
 Longannet Power Station
 52
 Fife


 Scottish Power
 Cockenzie Power Station
 30.5
 East Lothian


 Lafarge Cement UK
 Dunbar works
 13.8
 East Lothian



  Water Emissions

  

 Company
 Site
 Emissions (kg)
 Local Authority


 BP Exploration Co Ltd
 Kinneil terminal
 1.1
 Falkirk


 Grangemouth CHP Ltd
 Bo’ness Road
 6.3
 Falkirk


 BP Exploration Co Ltd
 Dalmeny Tank Farm
 2.0
 City of Edinburgh


 Clackmannanshire Council
 Black Devon Landfill Site
 1.2
 Clackmannanshire


 BP Oil Grangemouth
Refinery Ltd
 Grangemouth Refinery
 10.6
 Falkirk


 Talisman Energy UK Ltd
 Flotta Terminal
 4.0
6.0
 Shetland
Falkirk


 BP Chemicals Limited
Arjo Wiggins Limited
 Grangemouth
Fort William Mill
 3.7
 Highland



  It should not be inferred that reports above the threshold imply a risk to health, since, as described in the tables, risk is related to degree of exposure rather than the level of emission.

Health

Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-2866 by Malcolm Chisholm on 6 October 2003, how much has been spent on advertising the healthyliving advice line in each month in 2003.

Mr Andy Kerr: The Healthy Living call centre information line is an integral, but only one, facet of a campaign designed to raise awareness, stimulate attitudinal and behavioural change as well as provide advice and information. Expenditure on the campaign over the months requested is as follows:

  

 January
 February
 March
 April
 May


 £548,010
 £347,012
 £181,758
 nil
 nil


 June
 July
 August
 September
 October


 £66,070 
 £89,939
 £435,740
 £185,778
 £6,956

Hutters

Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of similar issues to those experienced by the Carbeth Hutters’ Association in other locations, in particular in Lochgoilhead and Dumfries and Galloway.

Hugh Henry: The Executive has received correspondence and information in relation to issues raised at Lochgoilhead. We are not aware of any particular issues in relation to huts in Dumfries and Galloway.

Hutters

Chris Ballance (South of Scotland) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive how many responses it received to its consultation paper on possible legislation to provide greater protection for hutters in Scotland and how many responses indicated that the proposed legislation would be difficult to implement and/or would have a negative impact on Scots property law.

Hugh Henry: The Deputy First Minister wrote to the Justice 1 Committee on 27 January with the results of the consultation exercise. This information is available at pages 43-46 of the committee’s papers for its meeting on 4 February 2003 which is available at:

  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S1/official_report/cttee/just1-03/j1p03-03.pdf

Legislation

David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce legislation to amend the defamation laws as suggested in petition PE578 to the Parliament.

Cathy Jamieson: Petition PE578 invites the Scottish Parliament to consider extending absolute privilege to children and other vulnerable people reporting abuse to an appropriate authority.

  At present, any person, including the alleged victim, who reports such matters to an appropriate authority will benefit from the protection of qualified privilege. Qualified privilege will protect the person from a successful claim of defamation, unless it can be proved that the person making the defamatory statement was motivated by malice.

  The Scottish Executive takes child protection very seriously and is committed to protecting children and young people from all forms of abuse. However, the Executive also has a responsibility to individuals who may be accused falsely and maliciously of abuse. Extending absolute privilege to young people could impact unfairly on the rights of a potentially defamed person. The practical effect of extending absolute privilege would be to offer protection to an individual who maliciously makes false allegations of abuse. The Executive does not consider that it is necessary or desirable to do this to achieve the objective of protecting children and young people.

  The underlying concerns in this area are best addressed through guidelines on the handling of situations in which young people allege abuse, rather than by attempting to reconcile the divergent interests of accused and accuser through amendments to defamation law.

Poverty

Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the 2nd Report, 2003, of the Finance Committee on Cross Cutting Expenditure in relation to Children in Poverty , whether the level of poverty in Glasgow is the result of underfunding arising from the needs assessment technique used to determine the level of funding allocated to local authorities.

Mr Andy Kerr: The local government finance settlement provides resources to fund universal services, which all councils need to provide. Some of these services are more expensive to deliver to deprived populations and the system recognises this. It is up to each council to decide how best to direct its resources according to local needs and priorities. Glasgow City Council will receive an above inflation increase in revenue grant this year (6.6%, or £65 million) and further above inflation increases for the next two years (2004-05 and 2005-06).

  In addition, the Executive provides specific resources to directly address deprivation including the £90 million for Better Neighbourhood Services Fund, of which Glasgow received 30%, or £27 million, over 2001-04, and social inclusion partnerships funding of £60 million for 2003-04 (Glasgow will receive 41%, or £25 million).

Poverty

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what monitoring arrangements and targets are set in relation to any additional funds specifically allocated to tackle deprivation.

Ms Margaret Curran: The main additional funds specifically allocated to tackle deprivation are social inclusion partnership (SIP) funds and better neighbourhoods services funds (BNSF).

  In relation to the SIP fund, a Monitoring Framework has been in place since 1999, which requires each SIP to submit an annual report. These reports form the basis for appraisal by Communities Scotland, including formal appraisal visits. All SIPs have stated objectives and progress against these forms part of the appraisal process. SIP grant recipients are also required to submit quarterly financial returns.

  The BNSF is monitored through the submission of annual reports by each of the 12 BNSF Pathfinders. These annual reports detail progress against the output and outcome targets detailed in the Local Outcome Agreement (LOA) agreed with the Scottish Executive at the outset of the programme.

  Both BNSF (first year) and SIP annual reports are held by the Parliament’s Reference Centre. The SIP monitoring framework is available on the Communities Scotland website: www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk. BNSF annual reports are available on the Scottish Executive website: www.scotland.gov.uk.

Poverty

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when additional funding assigned to tackle deprivation was first allocated under each of the funding formulae that it uses to disburse funds and what targets were set to eliminate deprivation when such funding was allocated.

Ms Margaret Curran: The network of 48 social inclusion partnerships (SIPs) was launched in 1999.

  The authorities selected to implement pathfinders under the better neighbourhood services fund (BNSF) were announced on 15 January 2001.

  The answer given to question S2W-3231 provides details on the targets set when funding was allocated to both the SIP fund and BNSF.

  All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Poverty

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has made an impact assessment of additional funds allocated to tackle deprivation granted to local authorities, NHS boards and trusts and other bodies.

Ms Margaret Curran: The Scottish Executive keeps the use of resources under review to ensure that money is used effectively.

Recycling

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-2547 by Ross Finnie on 25 September 2003, which local authorities have submitted plans estimating that they will achieve 25% recycling and composting of municipal waste by 2006.

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-2547 by Ross Finnie on 25 September 2003, whether any local authorities propose to recycle and compost more than 25% of municipal waste by 2006 and, if so, which authorities.

Ross Finnie: The National Waste Plan target of recycling and composting 25% of municipal solid waste by 2006 applies to Scotland as a whole, rather than individual local authorities. Integrated Waste Management Plans under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 will lay down specific targets for local authorities.

  However, in the bids to the Strategic Waste Fund which have been funded or which are under assessment, five local authorities estimate that they will achieve 25% recycling and composting of municipal waste by 2006 and 15 (including three in a joint bid) that they will achieve more than 25%. A further eight bids have been received and are to be assessed and four more are expected.

  The five authorities that estimate achieving 25% are Aberdeen City, Glasgow, Argyll and Bute, Fife and Dumfries and Galloway. The 15 authorities that estimate achieving more than 25% are Aberdeenshire, Angus, Dundee, East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Moray, North Ayrshire, Orkney, Perth and Kinross, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Western Isles and, in a joint bid, Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling.

Research

Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are any plans to change the way in which research conducted by the CHARIS Food Research Division of the Hannah Research Institute is funded and what the reasons are for its position on this matter.

Ross Finnie: I refer the member to the answer given to question S2W-3150 on 30 October 2003. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

  http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search..

Scottish Water

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive what fines, and how many, have been imposed on Scottish Water for pollution offences.

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive what pollution offences committed by Scottish Water have resulted in a court conviction.

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many pollution offences committed by Scottish Water have resulted in a court conviction.

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive where pollution offences committed by Scottish Water have occurred.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:

  Scottish Water has been convicted of 10 pollution offences in 2002-03, which are detailed in the table:

  

 Court
 Date of Conviction
 Location and 
  Date Incident
 Penalty Imposed


 Hamilton
 30 April 02
 East Kilbride
 Fine £5,000
Fine £10,000
Fine £20,000


 Dumfries
 June 02
 Howgill Burn, Annan
 Fine £1,500
Fine £2,500


 Dumbarton
 16 July 02
 17 May 01
discharge to Ballagan Burn, Blairlinnans WTW
 Fine £4,000


 Hamilton
 6 November 02
 20 May – 13 June 01
Phillipshill WWTP
 Fine £10,000


 Dumbarton
 19 March 03
 21 Jan – 11 June 02
Ardoch WWTP
 Fine £2,000


 Dunfermline
 27 May 03
 23 May 02
Cairneyhill pumping station
 Fine £5,000


 Peebles
 18 June 03
 6 June 02
Bonnycraig WTW
 Fine £5,000


 Greenock
 24 July 03
 5 Aug 02 discharge to Cove 
  Burn, Cardwell Bay
 Fine £2,500


 Dumbarton
 15 August 03
 18 Apr- 19 Aug 02
Dalmuir WWTP discharge to River Clyde or estuary
 Fine £15,000


 Airdrie
 16 September 03
 21 & 23 Jan 03
Auchengeich WWTP discharge to Bothlin Burn
 Fine £3,000



  Note:

  WTW: Water Treatment Works; WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Scottish Water

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive what remedial actions Scottish Water has taken to prevent any further pollution incidents.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:

  Scottish Water’s £1.8 billion investment programme for 2002-06 is aimed at improving drinking water quality and wastewater treatment and £800 million of this overall programme is committed to cleaning up the environment by providing better sewage services and ensure cleaned water meets legislative standards. In addition, Scottish Water continually reviews its practices for dealing with the risk of outside pollution incidents which may affect both water and wastewater services and works within area catchments to ensure drinking water remains of high quality.

Scottish Water

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive how much Scottish Water has spent on pollution prevention.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:

  The main work Scottish Water carries out on pollution prevention relates to its wastewater treatment services and operationally Scottish Water spent £345 million in 2002-03 on these services. In addition, between 2002 and 2006 a further £800 million is being invested to improve sewage treatment throughout Scotland. This spending ensures that waste on the public network is collected, treated to meet legislative standards, and safely returned to the environment. Scottish Water also carries out work to minimise the risk of pollution from industrial waste, to protect the drinking water supply from pollutants and to work within catchments to ensure drinking water is of high quality, to assist in clean up operations, and on other environmental efforts such as sustainable development. The cost of these pollution prevention activities are contained within various budgets and cannot easily be quantified separately.

Scottish Water

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive how much Scottish Water has spent on pollution prevention as a percentage of any budget surplus that it has.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:

  The main work Scottish Water carries out on pollution prevention relates to its wastewater treatment services and in 2002-03 Scottish Water spent £345.0 million on wastewater services and £176.5 million in capital investment for wastewater. There was a surplus after tax of £34.9 million in 2002-03.

  So spending on pollution prevention in 2002-03 was almost 15 times as much (1,494%) as the budget surplus.

Scottish Water

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive how much, and what percentage of, any Scottish Water budget surplus has represented fines imposed for pollution offences.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:

  Any fines imposed for pollution offences are taken into account before evaluating the budget surplus. Scottish Water had £85,500 in fines imposed for 10 pollution offences in 2002-03, which is accounted for as part of the operational costs for wastewater services. The surplus after tax for 2002-03 was £34.9 million. Fines for pollution offences in 2002-03 represented 0.24% of the surplus.

Scottish Water

Rosie Kane (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive how much, and what percentage of, Scottish Water's maintenance expenditure has represented fines imposed for pollution offences.

Ross Finnie: I have asked Dr Jon Hargreaves, Chief Executive of Scottish Water to respond. His response is as follows:

  The main work Scottish Water carries out on pollution prevention relates to its wastewater treatment services and operationally Scottish Water spent £345.0 million on wastewater services. There were £85,500 in fines imposed for pollution offences in 2002-03 and these fines represent 0.02% of overall operational costs for wastewater treatment services in 2002-03. Scottish Water will have further operational expenditures to maintain water services.

Smoking

Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will now introduce legislation to create more smoke-free public places, in light of the latest study on the uptake of the Scottish Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public.

Mr Tom McCabe: The Scottish Executive has commissioned ASH (Scotland) and NHS Health Scotland to undertake a review of tobacco control policies and produce recommendations on what further action should be taken in Scotland. The joint report will be published in conjunction with a Scottish Executive Tobacco Control Action Plan later this autumn.

  The action plan will include commitments to work with NHS Health Scotland to increase public awareness of the risks associated with passive smoking and conduct a wide-ranging public debate on the measures that should be taken to reduce these risks and increase smoke-free provision in public places. It would be premature to commit to a legislative approach in advance of this consultation.

Voting Information

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to improve (a) electoral turnout and (b) political awareness across all age groups, with particular reference to the 18 to 25 age group.

Tavish Scott: The Executive is committed to reforming the voting arrangements to increase participation at local government elections, including further investigation of postal and electronic voting, and is holding a joint seminar with the Electoral Commission and COSLA in November to discuss election pilots. The Electoral Commission’s remit includes raising awareness of electoral and democratic systems in the UK and they have undertaken campaigns targeted specifically at raising awareness amongst 16 to 24-year-olds. We are also providing support for the Scottish Youth Parliament to develop its role in stimulating debate amongst and presenting the views of young people in Scotland.

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Parliament Pensions

Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Presiding Officer,  further to the answer to question S2W-2195 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 16 September 2003, whether MSPs’ staff can participate in the occupational pension schemes operated on behalf of staff employed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) and MSPs, and whether this option will be considered by the SPCB.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): MSPs’ staff cannot participate in the occupational pension schemes open to SPCB staff and MSPs. The SPCB has no plans to consider this matter. Payment towards pension provision for MSPs’ staff is, however, made under the members allowance scheme.